Intel Corporation (INTC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 34.50

+2.6%

Nov 21 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: grok who wrote (83290)	6/13/1999 4:19:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) of 186894

<The problem is that latency increases by 33% which is huge since drdram is weak on latency to begin with compared to plain old sdram.> Uh, KZNerd, I'm not certain about this, but I really don't think latency will be affected by slowing DRDRAM down to 600 MHz. The transmission speed is independent of latency. Of course, this is all assuming that Rambus isn't just slowing the clock down when it downbins DRDRAM modules to 600 MHz, that Rambus is also adjusting the number of latency clocks to compensate. Therefore, if latency is the problem, as some of Rambus' detractors say, then downbinning to 600 MHz should cause a very insignificant performance penalty, no? Tony is right. The story of Rambus is one big high-tech soap opera. But I still firmly believe that Rambus will end up the victor in the end. Tenchusatsu

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next